Roberts v. Health Partners Plans, Inc.

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

E.D. Pa.March 23, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SYREETA ROBERTS, Plaintiff, vs. HEALTH PARTNERS PLANS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Defendant Health Partners Plans, Inc. moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff Syreeta Roberts. The grounds for the Motion are set forth in the attached Memorandum of Law, which is incorporated herein. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alison Morris Jonathan D. Wetchler, Esq. Alison C. Morris, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 30 S. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 979-1000 Email: jwetchler@duanemorris.com Email: acmorris@duanemorris.com Attorneys for Defendant Health Partners Plans, Inc. Date: March 23, 2017 Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SYREETA ROBERTS, Plaintiff, vs. HEALTH PARTNERS PLANS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION The Complaint of Plaintiff Syreeta Roberts (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Roberts”) purports to allege two claims against Defendant Health Partners Plans, Inc. (“Defendant” or “HPP”). Count I purports to assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), alleging that HPP discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her race because it denied her request for an unpaid leave of absence and retaliated against her for requesting leave by terminating her employment. Count II of the Complaint purports to assert a breach of contract claim based on HPP’s denial of Ms. Roberts’ request for leave under HPP’s discretionary leave of absence policy and termination of her employment. HPP moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety for the reasons described below. Count I of the Complaint must be dismissed because it does not set forth a plausible Section 1981 claim. Plaintiff patently fails to allege facts supporting her conclusory allegations of race discrimination and retaliation under Section 1981. Moreover, the few factual allegations Plaintiff does include suggest that she was terminated because during the first year of her employment, she informed HPP that she would miss six to eight weeks of work due to a surgical Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 14 procedure, Compl. ¶ 17, but was not eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Compl. ¶ 24, and was denied an unpaid leave of absence under HPP’s discretionary leave policy. Compl. ¶ 18. These allegations fail to state a claim under Section 1981, and therefore Count I must be dismissed. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, Count II of the Complaint, fails because as a matter of law, the Employee Handbook did not create a contractual right to continued employment. Plaintiff admits that she was an at-will employee of HPP Compl. ¶ 28. Under Pennsylvania law, an employment relationship remains terminable at-will, unless the employer provides a “clear and definite intention” to overcome the at-will doctrine. The Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations showing that HPP intended to overcome the presumption of at-will employment or confer a contractual entitlement to unpaid leaves of absence. Just the opposite, HPP’s Employee Handbook contains disclaimers stating that employment is at-will and that the handbook does not create or impose any contractual obligations. Moreover, the leave policy itself could not create a contractual right to leave since it plainly provides that leaves are discretionary. Therefore, Count II must be dismissed with prejudice. II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS1 HPP provides health insurance to underprivileged individuals in the Philadelphia area. Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff, an African American woman, was hired as a Claims Specialist by HPP on or about March 31, 2014. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14. During her employment with HPP, Plaintiff had numerous health issues, including uterine fibrosis, anemia, digestive disorders and reproductive disorders. Compl. ¶ 15. Plaintiff provided HPP with a physician’s note indicating that she was 1 For purposes of this Motion to Dismiss only, Defendant accepts as true the allegations in the Complaint. No admission of fact is intended or should be inferred from Defendant’s recitation of any factual allegation. Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 14 required to undergo surgery on November 10, 2014 and would be absent from work for six-eight weeks. Compl. ¶ 17. HPP denied Plaintiff’s request for time off pursuant to HPP’s unpaid leave of absence policy contained in its Employee Handbook, and Plaintiff was not eligible for FMLA benefits. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20, 24, Ex. A. Plaintiff was required to obtain surgery and did not have the option to postpone it. Compl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on November 7 or November 9, 2014. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 23.2 Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 20, 2017, which Defendant now moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6). III. STANDARD OF REVIEW The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the complaint against the pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). If a complaint fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” a court must dismiss the complaint. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (Rule 8(a) requires that the facts in a complaint plausibly suggest that the pleader is entitled to relief). Facial plausibility requires more than “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In essence, the factual content of the complaint must “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. While a court is required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court “need not accept as true ‘unsupported conclusions 2 The Complaint asserts two dates of termination in paragraphs 13 and 23. Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 14 and unwarranted inferences.’” Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, 184 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”). Moreover, “the Federal Rules do not require courts to credit a complaint’s conclusory statements without reference to its factual context.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”) (citation omitted). After Iqbal, district courts must conduct a two-part analysis when evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. A complaint has to “show” such an entitlement with its facts. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). If, upon completing this analysis, “the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]’-‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.”” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, a claim may be dismissed with prejudice where the allegations of the complaint fail to state a claim as a matter of law and amendment would be futile. See Connearney v. Main Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 5 of 14 Line Hosps., Inc., No. 15-2730, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170572, at *9-10, 14-15 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2015) (stating that “a district court has discretion to deny . . . amend[ment] if it is apparent from the record that . . . the amendment would be futile . . . . mean[ing] that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,” and dismissing plaintiff’s breach of contract claim based on an employee handbook with prejudice and denying leave to amend) (quoting Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2003), and In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997)). IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claim Fails as a Matter of Law Because Plaintiff Was Employed At-Will, the Handbook Is Not a Contract, and By Its Express Terms, the Handbook Policy Does Not Establish a Right to Leave. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law because HPP’s Employee Handbook contains disclaimers that the handbook does not constitute a contract, promise benefits, or change the presumption of employment at-will. Plaintiff admits that she was an at- will employee. Compl. ¶ 28. What is more, the leave policy attached to the Complaint, upon which Plaintiff relies as the basis for her contract claim, makes clear that leaves are not a contractual right. According to the policy’s express terms, leaves must be requested in writing specifying the reasons for the leave and its length and timing, and “may” be granted “[a]t the discretion of department management and Human Resources.” See Compl., Ex. A (emphasis added). “Pennsylvania has a strong presumption of at-will employment.” Makara v. Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, No. 08-5545, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31970, at *8-9 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2009) (citing McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 561 Pa. 307, 750 A.2d 283, 290 (Pa. 2000)). Where a plaintiff alleges that a contract exists overriding the at-will presumption, courts require the plaintiff to identify a “clear and definite” expression of the Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 6 of 14 employer’s intention to that end. Id. at *9. “Thus, an employee handbook does not overcome the ‘at-will’ presumption unless the handbook’s language clearly expresses the employer’s intent to do so.” Id. (citation omitted). Further, “a handbook is only enforceable as a contract if a reasonable person in the same position as the employee would interpret its provisions as evidencing an intent by the employer to overcome the at-will presumption.” Anderson v. Haverford Coll., 851 F. Supp. 179, 181 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Where, as here, an employer’s handbook contains a disclaimer stating that there is no intent to create a contract, the employer has succeeded in retaining the at-will presumption. In Anderson, for example, the employer’s handbook contained an introductory letter stating: “The handbook of course is not a contract of employment, but it is intended to serve as an introduction and guide to expectations at Haverford.” Id. at 182. The handbook cautioned that “nothing contained in this section will have the effect of altering the at-will status of your employment.” Id. Therefore, “the handbook clearly fail[ed] to create a contract of employment as alleged by plaintiff.” Id. Likewise, in Rutherfoord v. Presbyterian-University Hospital, the court held that the defendant’s disclaimer in the employee manual, which stated that the guidelines “are a summary of the [Hospital Manual] and group benefits policies with insurance companies, and are not intended to be a legal contract,” clearly stated the employer’s intent not to create any contractual rights and, therefore, as a matter of law, the manual could not be found to create an implied contract. 612 A.2d 500, 504 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (emphasis in original). See also Ruzicki v. Catholic Cemeteries Ass’n of Diocese of Pittsburgh, 610 A.2d 495, 498 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (holding that a handbook disclaimer stating that the handbook did not affect an employee’s at- will status was an “insurmountable burden” to the plaintiff’s case); Landmesser v. United Air Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 7 of 14 Lines, In stating th plaintiff’ It surprisin Yet Plain Complain Exhibit A the Table . . 3 In consider explicitly 1426; see attached handbook c., 102 F. Su at “'These r s breach of c is well unde gly, HPP’s E tiff conveni t. Defenda to this Mot of Content . . . . . . determinin not only the relied upon also Makar to defendant language). pp. 2d 273, egulations d ontract clai rstood that mployee H ently neglec nt has provi ion.3 The f s, states: g the suffici allegations in the comp a, 2009 U.S ’s motion to 280 (E.D. P o not constit m). most emplo andbook inc ted to attach ded a true an irst substant ency of a co pled in the c laint.” In r . Dist. LEX dismiss wi a. 2000) (co ute an empl yee handboo ludes one m that portion d correct co ive page of H mplaint on omplaint, b e Burlington IS 31970, at th respect to ncluding th oyment con ks include a uch like tho of the Emp py of the di PP’s Empl a motion to ut also a “do Coat Facto *8, 13 (rely a breach of at handbook tract . . . .” n disclaimer se in the ab loyee Hand sclaimer sec oyee Handb dismiss, a co cument inte ry Sec. Litig ing on hand contract cla language ullified that , and not ove-cited ca book to the tion, attach ook, follow urt may gral to or ., 114 F.3d book excerp im based on ses. ed as ing at ts the Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 8 of 14 Exhibit A H preserve to acquai employer section a not guara same pos at-will pr was emp N entitleme meritless that she a discussin vitiating . PP’s Emplo the presump nt employee and that em dvises in cle ntee any pa ition could i esumption o loyed at-wil onetheless, nt to an unp , based upon ttached to h g unpaid lea Plaintiff’s c yee Handbo tion of at-w s with HPP ployees ma ar and unam rticular bene nterpret the r provide co l. Plaintiff ass aid leave of the plain la er Complain ves of absen laim of any ok contains ill employm ’s policies. y be termina biguous lan fits. In sum se provision ntractual rig erts that the absence. C nguage of th t as Exhibit ce contains contractual e the languag ent. It first It cautions i ted at any t guage that t , neither Pla s as evidenc hts of any k Employee H ompl. ¶¶ 20 e policy up A. The sec language m ntitlement t e found by P identifies th n bold font t ime with or he handboo intiff nor an ing an inten ind. Indeed andbook cr -21, 38. Th on which Pl tion of HPP aking clear o a leave. ennsylvani at the handb hat HPP is a without not k is not a co y reasonabl t by HPP to , Plaintiff a eated a cont is allegation aintiff attem ’s Employe that leaves a a courts to ook is desig n at-will ice. Finally ntract and d e person in overcome t dmits that sh ractual is patently pts to rely a e Handbook re discretio ned , this oes the he e nd nary, Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 9 of 14 Compl., E the writte leaves “m Resource attached time off f of law. B fails as a B C retaliatio factual al T (1) she is an advers were trea of discrim Dist. LEX xhibit A. T n request sp ay”, not wi s.” Id. (emp to the Comp or her surge ased on the matter of la . Plaint Factu Basis ount I of the n claims und legations su o state a cla a member o e employm ted more fav ination. V IS 15221, a he policy re ecify the re ll, be grante hasis added laint suppor ry. For this foregoing, H w and shoul iff’s Section al Allegatio of Plaintiff Complaint er Section 1 pporting HP im of race d f a protecte ent action, a orably or th anderveer v t *10 (E.D. quires that ason for the d “[a]t the d ). Nothing i ts Plaintiff’ independen PP respectf d be dismiss 1981 Clai ns Plausibl ’s Race. , purporting 981, must b P’s liability iscriminatio d class, (2) s nd (4) simila e circumsta . FedEx Gro Pa. Feb. 3, leaves be re request, all iscretion of n HPP’s pol s allegation t reason, Co ully submit ed with prej m Fails Bec y Demonstr to assert rac e dismissed under any o n under Sect he is qualifi rly-situated nces of the und Packag 2017); see a quested, app consistent w department icy on unpa that she was unt I of the s that Plainti udice. ause the Co ating Dispa e discrimina because the f those theo ion 1981, a ed for the p non-memb adverse acti e Sys., Inc., lso Morton roved in ad ith the plain manageme id leaves of contractual Complaint f ff’s breach mplaint A rate Treat tion, harass Complaint ries. plaintiff mu osition held ers of the pr on give rise No. 16-1979 v. Arnold, 6 vance, and t statement t nt and Hum absence ly entitled to ails as a ma of contract c sserts No ment on the ment and is devoid of st plead tha , (3) she suf otected clas to an inferen , 2017 U.S 18 Fed. App hat hat an tter laim t: fered s ce . x. Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 10 of 14 136, 141 n.5 (3d Cir. 2015) (“[T]he substantive elements of a claim under Section 1981 are generally identical to the elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII”) (citation omitted). “The central focus of the inquiry in a case such as this is always whether the employer is treating some people less favorably than others because of their race . . . .” Vanderveer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15221, at *11. In Vanderveer, an African American woman claimed that she was treated less favorably by her supervisor, and ultimately terminated, because of her race. Id. While the complaint in that case contained many factual allegations regarding the supervisor’s treatment of the plaintiff, it failed to assert any factual allegations regarding the supervisor’s treatment of employees of other races. The sole allegation in the complaint relating to preferential treatment of non-minorities was that the plaintiff “never saw Caucasian . . . employees treated in a similar manner.” Id. This, the court held, was a “legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” and mere “boilerplate” insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. at *12. As Judge Surrick explained: “Several courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have found that the failure to identify similarly situated individuals outside of the plaintiff's class who were treated more favorably results in an insufficiently pled claim.” Id. at *12-13 (emphasis added). Because the plaintiff’s failure to meet this burden, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s discrimination claim. Id. at *14. The Vanderveer court noted several recent Eastern District cases granting motions to dismiss for failing to plead factual allegations showing how similarly situated employees outside of the plaintiff’s protected class were treated more favorably. Id. at *13 (citing Magerr v. City of Phila., No. 15-4264, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48177, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2016) (finding that the plaintiff failed to state a sufficient claim when he did not identify others who were treated Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 11 of 14 better but instead claimed that he was denied “the same terms and conditions of employment available to other employees”); Boone v. Pa. Se. Transp. Auth., No. 14-1373, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168597, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2014) (finding that the plaintiff failed to state a sufficient claim in part because she did not “allege any facts regarding individuals . . . with whom we can compare Plaintiff”); Barthold v. Briarleaf Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. Nursing Home, No. 13- 2463, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87602, at *3, 12 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2014) (finding that the plaintiff failed to state a sufficient claim when she alleged only that she was subject to discipline “for which other similarly situated Caucasian and younger employees were not disciplined”)). Dismissal also is warranted where the allegations of the complaint suggest that something other than the plaintiff’s race motivated the employer to take adverse action. In Dixon v. Women’s Christian Alliance Foster Care Agency, this Court held that the plaintiffs failed to assert a plausible claim for relief under Section 1981 because the factual allegations of the complaint suggested that the plaintiffs were terminated for reasons other than discrimination because of their race. No. 13-3730, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135920, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2014). The plaintiffs, both of whom were African American, alleged that they were terminated for supporting the adoption of a black child by a white family. Id. These allegations “do not support Plaintiffs’ otherwise bald contention that they were fired because of their race, as required for a §1981 claim. Instead, the amended complaint contains only factual averments that they were terminated because of their support for a particular white adoptive family . . . .” Id. Because the complaint did not assert facts plausibly demonstrating that the employer discriminated against the plaintiff because of their race, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Section 1981 claims. Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 12 of 14 The Complaint here suffers from the same flaws as the complaints in Vanderveer and Dixon and must be dismissed. Just as in Vanderveer, Plaintiff does not assert any factual allegations identifying similarly situated employees of other races who were treated more favorably by HPP by being granted unpaid leaves of absence under similar circumstances. The Complaint merely asserts the legal conclusion, couched as a factual allegation, that “[o]ther non African American workers were not subject to the same discrimination.” Compl. ¶ 26. “Such boilerplate language simply does not suffice.” Barthold, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87602, at *12; see also Magerr, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48177, at *8 (same); Boone, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168597, at *4 (same). Moreover, just as the complaint in Dixon suggested that something other than the plaintiffs’ race motivated their employer’s decision to terminate them, the Complaint here suggests that something other than Plaintiff’s African American race motivated HPP’s decision to terminate her. The few factual allegations of the Complaint suggest that Plaintiff was terminated because in her first year of employment she was planning to miss six to eight weeks of work due to a surgical procedure, was not eligible for leave under the FMLA, and the leave policy was discretionary. In sum, Plaintiff’s Section 1981 discrimination claim fails because the allegations of the Complaint do not give rise to an inference of discriminatory treatment on the basis of race or provide any support of a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiff’s cursory attempts to incorporate other theories of racial mistreatment under Section 1981, including harassment and retaliation, fail for the same reason. Plaintiff claims that she “was retaliated against for requesting time off for her surgery,” that “management aided and abetted the aforementioned retaliation, hostile work environment and discrimination” and that Defendant “violated [Section 1981] as Plaintiff’s termination, harassment, hostile work Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 13 of 14 environment, and discrimination was based upon her need for leave to have required surgery and recovery time, based upon her race, and . . . in retaliation for requesting such rights.” Compl. ¶¶ 27, 31, 36. The Complaint fails to include any factual support for these patently conclusory allegations that Plaintiff apparently is throwing against the wall in the hope that something will somehow stick. As to these “claims,” Plaintiff doesn’t even bother to lay out even a “[t]hreadbare recital[] of the elements of a cause of action,” which would be legally insufficient in any event. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663. She simply states that denial of her request for an unpaid leave of absence under HPP’s discretionary policy constituted racial harassment and retaliation. These woefully inadequate claims, along with the rest of Count I of the Complaint, must be dismissed. V. CONCLUSION Defendant Health Partners Plans, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant further requests that Count II of the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth above. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alison Morris Jonathan D. Wetchler, Esq. Alison C. Morris, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 30 S. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 979-1000 Email: jwetchler@duanemorris.com Email: acmorris@duanemorris.com Attorneys for Defendant Health Partners Plans, Inc. Date: March 23, 2017 Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7 Filed 03/23/17 Page 14 of 14 MISSION STATEMENT • To manage our business to exceed expectations. • To operate with respect and dignity in all relations. • To continually improve the health outcomes of our members. For up-to-date employee information, visit our intranet site at http://hp4u/. Employee Handbook CC-193-13 Employee Handbook Cover_v2_Layout 1 10/23/13 11:26 AM Page 1 Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7-1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 6 i DM2\7548013.1 EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK 901 Market Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 849-9606 www.hpplans.com *Employee Hotline-(215) 991-4180 (24-hour information line for updates on inclement weather and other emergency situations that might affect Health Partners Plans operations on a given day). Prepared by the Human Resources Department October, 2013 Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7-1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 6 iv DM2\7548013.1 Health Partners Plans Employee Handbook Table of Contents 1. About This Handbook .............................................................................. 1 Equal Employment Opportunity……………………………………………1 2. History and Current Structure ................................................................ 2 3. Government Relations and Compliance ................................................ 5 Regulatory Compliance Hotlines and E-Mails……………...…………….6 4. Your Employment .................................................................................... 6 Employee Classifications ...................................................................... 6 New Employee Orientation ................................................................... 7 Telecommuting……………………………………………………………….7 Work Schedules and Attendance ......................................................... 7 Absence ............................................................................................... 8 Lateness ............................................................................................... 8 Inclement Weather Conditions or Emergency Closings ........................ 9 Pay Practices ........................................................................................ 9 Civic and Charitable Volunteerism………………………………………..10 Donation of Time……………………………………………………………11 Dress Code...................................................................................... …11 Driver’s License Verification……………………………………………….11 Job Performance……………………………………………………………12 Corrective Counseling and Performance Management ...................... 12 Verification of Employment ................................................................. 13 Job Posting ......................................................................................... 13 Job Transfer ....................................................................................... 13 Leaving Health Partners Plans .......................................................... 13 Employment Practices ........................................................................ 14 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act…………………….….15 Employment of Relatives .................................................................... 16 Grievance Procedure .......................................................................... 16 Access to Your Personnel Files .......................................................... 17 Bi-Lingual Staff & Applicant Assessment………………………………..17 Confidentiality ..................................................................................... 17 Conflict of Interest ............................................................................... 19 Code of Business Conduct ................................................................. 20 Whistleblower……………………………………………………………….20 Personal Standard of Conduct ............................................................ 21 Social Media……………………………………………………………......22 Internet Access and Use .................................................................... 23 E-Mail Standards ................................................................................ 24 Special Investigations Unit (SIU) ........................................................ 24 Fraud and Abuse Hotline .................................................................... 24 False Claims and Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA)………….…….24 Learning and Education ................................................................... …25 Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7-1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 6 v DM2\7548013.1 5. Health Partners Plans Flexible Benefits Program ............................... 26 Benefits Overview ............................................................................... 27 Educational Assistance Program ........................................................ 31 Employee Assistance Program ........................................................... 31 Flexible Spending Accounts ............................................................... 31 401(k) Retirement Plan ....................................................................... 33 TransitChek (RideEco) Program ......................................................... 33 Corporate Rate Parking Program ....................................................... 34 Credit Union ........................................................................................ 34 COBRA Benefits ................................................................................. 34 Nursing Mothers……………………………………………………………35 6. Time Away from Work ........................................................................... 35 Sick Leave .......................................................................................... 35 Family Medical Leave ......................................................................... 35 Domestic Violence Leave…………………………………………….……36 Bereavement Leave ........................................................................... 36 Jury Duty and Other Court Appearances ............................................ 37 Military Leave ..................................................................................... 37 Unpaid Leave of Absence .................................................................. 37 Holidays .............................................................................................. 37 Personal Days .................................................................................... 38 Additional Time……………………………………………………………..38 Vacation ............................................................................................. 38 Worker’s Compensation ..................................................................... 39 Return to Work after Leave of Absence .............................................. 39 7. Safety and Security ................................................................................ 39 Use of Company Property .................................................................. 39 Cell Phone .......................................................................................... 40 Smoking ............................................................................................. 40 Identification Badges .......................................................................... 41 Visitors ................................................................................................ 41 Fire Safety and Evacuation ................................................................ 41 Personal Property ................................................................................41 Changes to Personnel Information ..................................................... 42 Drug-Free Workplace ......................................................................... 42 Drug Testing……………………………………………………………..…43 Solicitation .......................................................................................... 43 8. Other Employee Services ...................................................................... 44 Employee Activities Committee .......................................................... 44 Employee of the Month/Year .............................................................. 44 Spirit of Health Partners Plans Award ................................................ 44 Health Partners Plans Intranet ............................................................ 44 Internet Classified Ads ........................................................................ 44 Health Partners Plans Internet ............................................................ 44 The Pulse Newsletter………………………………………………………45 Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7-1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 6 1 DM2\7548013.1 1. About This Handbook Health Partners Plans is pleased to provide you with your Employee Handbook. Your handbook has been prepared to acquaint you with Health Partners Plans’ policies, procedures, practices, and benefits. It also provides you with answers to some of the most commonly asked questions about working at Health Partners Plans. Please review this handbook carefully. Familiarize yourself with its contents and keep it handy for future reference. More detailed information will be provided during New Employee Orientation and in your Departmental Resource Manual, and HP4U, our intranet site, which contains all official Health Partners Plans policies. Information in this handbook can be easily located using the Table of Contents which outlines each topic within each section. In the event of any discrepancies between Health Partners Plans’ policies and procedures and the information contained in this handbook, Health Partners Plans’ policies and procedures will prevail. If you have any questions, or need additional information, we encourage you to ask your department supervisor or Human Resources or refer to the online Human Resources policies. Health Partners Plans is an “At Will” employer and may terminate your employment at any time with or without notice. Your employment with Health Partners Plans is voluntary and you are free to resign at any time, for any reason, with or without notice. Equal Employment Opportunity Health Partners Plans is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Employment and advancement opportunities are open to qualified applicants and current employees, based solely on aptitude and ability. Opportunities are not influenced by race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, or Vietnam Era Status. Health Partners Plans will ensure that personnel actions as well as Health Partners Plans’ programs, policies, and procedures are administered in accordance with the principles of equal employment opportunity. Disclaimer This handbook is not intended to, nor does it constitute a contract of employment or a promise or guarantee of benefits. All Health Partners Plans’ policies, procedures, practices, and benefit programs outlined in this handbook are intended to provide for the fair and equitable treatment of all Health Partners Plans employees. Health Partners Plans reserves the right to change, delete, or amend any policy, procedure, practice, or benefit program at any time. Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7-1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 5 of 6 38 DM2\7548013.1 Bereavement Leave You are granted up to five days paid leave for the death of a family member.  5 days - Spouse or Child (Employees requesting bereavement for a domestic partner must provide proof of relationship as designated for inclusion in our health insurance benefits, although they do not need to be covered under our benefits. )  3 days - Mother (Step-mother), Father (Step-father), Sister (Step-sister), Brother (Step-brother), or Parent-in-law  1 day - Grandparent, Grandchild, Brother-in-law, Sister-in-law, Aunt, Uncle, Niece or Nephew, Son-in-law or Daughter-in-law Jury Duty and Other Court Appearances Health Partners Plans encourages you to exercise your civic responsibilities by serving on a jury when called. Time off for mandatory jury duty as required by subpoena or court order is excused and paid at full pay, provided proof of duty is verified. You must notify your immediate supervisor and provide a copy of the jury duty notice and court vouchers or other verifiable documentation regarding attendance as soon as possible. You are not required to reimburse Health Partners Plans for any jury duty pay, witness fees or court paid expenses received. If you are required to make court appearances due to your position at Health Partners Plans, you will receive your regular salary and will be reimbursed for travel expenses. If you are required to make a court appearance for reasons other than outlined above, you should use accrued personal or vacation hours with prior approval of your manager or supervisor. Military Leave Health Partners Plans will comply with all applicable state and federal laws regarding Military leave. Health Partners Plans will provide two weeks paid Military leave per calendar year. Health Partners Plans will provide time off without pay for any additional Military leave. Military leave includes the commissioned corps of the public health service and other uniformed services designated by the President of the United States. Health Partners Plans does not discriminate against persons who are a member of, or apply to be a member of, the uniformed services. Unpaid Leave of Absence At the discretion of department management and Human Resources, you may be granted a personal leave of absence without pay for up to 90 days. All requests must be submitted in writing and approved in advance by your supervisor. The written request must outline the reason for the request and specify the dates of the leave. You are responsible to pay for your benefits during the leave. Holidays Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7-1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SYREETA ROBERTS, Plaintiff, vs. HEALTH PARTNERS PLANS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA ORDER AND NOW this ___ day of ____________, 2017, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety, and Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. ________________________________ Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro, U.S.D.J. Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7-2 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 23, 2017, true and correct copies of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Memorandum of Law were electronically filed with the Court and are available for viewing and downloading from the ECF System by all counsel of record. In addition, I sent true and correct copies of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Memorandum of Law via first class mail to Plaintiff’s counsel at the following address: Marc A. Weinberg Saffren & Weinberg 815 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 22 Jenkintown, PA 19046 mweinberg@saffwein.com (215) 567-6288 DUANE MORRIS, LLP /s/ Alison Morris Jonathan D. Wetchler, Esq. Alison C. Morris, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 30 S. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 979-1000 Email: jwetchler@duanemorris.com Email: acmorris@duanemorris.com Attorneys for Defendant Health Partners Plans, Inc. Case 2:17-cv-00297-NIQA Document 7-3 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 1